Atheism

[CrazyRachel]

I mean no offence to any atheists who may come to this forum in order to take part in civil discussions and ask questions etc. but I have been on the recieving end of the agressive atheism and secularism of which Pope Benedict spoke when he visited the UK. Many atheists completely dismissed his comments stating that he was wrong and that they’ve never known such agression to take place, but thats probably because they’ve never experienced being on the recieving end of it themselves. I’ve never pushed my beliefs onto anyone or forced my opinion down anyone’s throat; I love my faith and if anyone asks me about it I’m only to happy to oblige them by answering their questions, however many atheists have strongly felt the need to berate me and tell me why what I believe is so wrong and why they are absolutely right, and in modern society this is deemed acceptable because its not ‘religion’ they are forcing onto me. ‘Or isnt it?’ I find myself asking. When athiests bombard me with a mega list of why I’m stupid and have sentenced myself to live in unenlightenment because I have not seen what they percieve to be the truth, is that not a form of evangelisation? Are the theories of the Big Bang and Evolution simply an atheist’s creation story, as they are after all only theory and interpretations and ideas? Are these not words that secular society use to describe the story of Adam and Eve? I watched a documentary made by Richard Dawkins and he told with such happiness a story of how a former Creationist’s beliefs were diminished within one afternoon of discussion with himself (Dawkins) and other Darwinists and when the Creationist came round to their way of thinking they applauded and cheered and congratulated him. I couldnt help but wonder if Professor Dawkins would call it brainwashing if a similar event took place in a mosque or church where the congragation cheered a new convert. A staunch athiest (again, not ALL athiests) would accuse world religions of being organised and follow dogmas. But isnt atheism going down the same road? It would probably argue that it isnt, but if thats the case why does humanism, a view that ‘makes sense of the world using reason’ and ‘live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs,’ celebrate life events with weddings and naming ceremonies? Arent these events just as organised and dogmatic as religious weddings or Christenings/baptisms?

So my overall question is this; has atheism became a religion in its self?

 

[beafedor]

A couple of years ago, I asked a question on a secular forum in my country (France): what are the moral values of Atheism? on the religion/spirituality section. I explained that as a Catholic, I find mine in the 10 commandments in the Bible, so what is their “book of the law”? A lot of Atheists were offended that there was no “Atheism” section to ask questions about Atheism. They strongly felt that they have core values that resemble the 10 commandments (I’m a good person because I don’t steal, I don’t kill…) except that their definition of stealing and killing are a little different (don’t include cheating on taxes and abortion for example) and they are tolerant people which is what Christians lack. I’ve often wondered if Atheism was a religion in itself.

 

[jwright82]

Atheists are generally not very logical in their thinking. I have noticed after 11 years experience debating them that they tend to commit lots of logical errors and fallicies. But you are both right they are very fundementalist in general, especially the new atheism of Dawkins or Dennett. Following St. Augustine I as a dutch Reformed thinker would label Atheism as a religion because all people are religous. What we love is what we worship and what we worship is what defines us religously. So atheism loves and worships reason and science, that is what they are religously speaking.

 

[AnAtheist]

What we love is what we worship and what we worship is what defines us religously. So atheism loves and worships reason and science, that is what they are religously speaking.

And as a great advantage we can prove our gods. Every day, in our labs. Cool, eh?

 

[jwright82]

And as a great advantage we can prove our gods. Every day, in our labs. Cool, eh?

Nice response, I like that! But keep in mind the great disatvanteges to science, it cannot answer certian very important questions. Morality cannot be placed under a microscope and studyed to see what is right or wrong. If scientifc proof is the only, or most important, type of proof than your whole system is flawed by the problem of induction. This problem cannot be proved by science at all because it is a logical problem. You must admit to other types of proofs to resolve it and even then only christian theism can resolve it, so you are in a catch 22 situation.

 

[beafedor]

And as a great advantage we can prove our gods. Every day, in our labs. Cool, eh?

When is the last time that you saw an atom?

 

[AnAtheist]

But keep in mind the great disatvanteges to science, it cannot answer certian very important questions. Morality cannot be placed under a microscope and studyed to see what is right or wrong.

Quite true.

You must admit to other types of proofs to resolve it and even then only christian theism can resolve it, so you are in a catch 22 situation.

On the contrary, Christian theism is surely not the only way to “solve this problem”. What solves it is generally called “ethics”, and there are other and better ethical systems (you may call them “beliefs”) than the Christian one. The “better” is of course is my personal opinion, you most probably think otherwise.

 

[AnAtheist]

When is the last time that you saw an atom?

The last time I looked at a Laue diagramm.

 

[jwright82]

Quite true.

On the contrary, Christian theism is surely not the only way to “solve this problem”. What solves it is generally called “ethics”, and there are other and better ethical systems (you may call them “beliefs”) than the Christian one. The “better” is of course is my personal opinion, you most probably think otherwise.

Well at this point I always whos ethics? Western philosophy has no shortage of them so which one actually solves the ethical dilema? What theoy of ethics actually proves anything to be right or wrong? Also I am curious as to how you would go about solving the problem of induction?

 

[AnAtheist]

Well at this point I always whos ethics? Western philosophy has no shortage of them so which one actually solves the ethical dilema? What theoy of ethics actually proves anything to be right or wrong? Also I am curious as to how you would go about solving the problem of induction?

I suspect with “proof” you mean something like a mathematical proof. Neither practical science nor ethics work that way. In science we have empirical proof. Evidence leads to theories, theories make assumptions (prophecies you might say), those must math new evidence. If not the theory is dismissed, otherwise it is a good one.
And ethics are more or less an apodictic system to derive a moral code from. It depends on how you regard a human being, “Menschenbild” we call it in German. I am not sure if that translates very well into English, my dictionary says “idea of man”.

 

[mdrummer5]

So my overall question is this; has atheism became a religion in its self?

I would say yes in the context of the rest of your post. Especially considering a thread that I started a month or so ago about some atheists now signing a form to officialy denounce God by rejecting their baptism. If you truly don’t believe then your baptism was nothing more than you having water poored over you in a meaningless ritual… signing a piece of paper to officialy negate something that is intangible is nothing more than a waste of the paper it’s printed on.

It’s just as ridiculous to you or I as our “blind faith” is to them.

 

[jwright82]

I suspect with “proof” you mean something like a mathematical proof. Neither practical science nor ethics work that way. In science we have empirical proof. Evidence leads to theories, theories make assumptions (prophecies you might say), those must math new evidence. If not the theory is dismissed, otherwise it is a good one.
And ethics are more or less an apodictic system to derive a moral code from. It depends on how you regard a human being, “Menschenbild” we call it in German. I am not sure if that translates very well into English, my dictionary says “idea of man”.

“Menshenbild”, that is the third german word that I know of that does not translate into englisjh well. I think I get your meaning though. Ethics is hard to resolve to be honest because no one agrees on exactly what is right or wrong. Take murder for example, is abortion murder yes or no? So you see that some other theory is needed t abritrate humean ethical concerns. Practicality leads to nazism because anything can be ethicaly good on practical grounds.

 

[AnAtheist]

Ethics is hard to resolve to be honest because no one agrees on exactly what is right or wrong. Take murder for example, is abortion murder yes or no? So you see that some other theory is needed t abritrate humean ethical concerns.

Yes, ethics is a complicated question. And it isn’t answered with a simple answer, like some god telling us what’s good and what’s bad in simple rules.

Practicality leads to nazism because anything can be ethicaly good on practical grounds.

Actually Nazis had a very strict moral code, but that only worked for them and not for everybody, which should be the case for good ethics (imho). If the ones in power, or the one in power enforces the moral law that’s fascism. (fascism - from fasces, the Roman signs of power) And if the people follow their powerful leaders blindly, well, we all know where that leads to…

 

[jwright82]

Yes, ethics is a complicated question. And it isn’t answered with a simple answer, like some god telling us what’s good and what’s bad in simple rules.

Actually Nazis had a very strict moral code, but that only worked for them and not for everybody, which should be the case for good ethics (imho). If the ones in power, or the one in power enforces the moral law that’s fascism. (fascism - from fasces, the Roman signs of power) And if the people follow their powerful leaders blindly, well, we all know where that leads to…

Well first off I would like to apologize for bringing up the nazi thing because it just dawned on me that you are German and I can only imagine how sensiteve that must be, so I am sorry I will not be so careless in the future. Also I am glad that you obviously have a strong moral sense, unfortunatly that is not the problem here it is a logical one. How logically can you have morals in an atheistic universe?

 

[Wesley7]

So my overall question is this; has atheism became a religion in its self?

In a way yes, its a subtle type of philosophy of non-belief.

 

[larkin31]

In a way yes, its a subtle type of philosophy of non-belief.

And so, in several ways, no: no worship services, no organization, no sacred text, no supernatural realm or agency.

 

[kja]

And as a great advantage we can prove our gods. Every day, in our labs. Cool, eh?

When did they turn a monkey into a man in the lab? Im sorry I missed it

A scientist was once quoted as saying that evolution is unique in the field of science as it does not require proof to be believed

 

[kenofken]

I don’t think it’s so much a matter of atheism being a “religion” unto itself as much as the fact that atheists are finding their collective voice for the first time, for a variety of reasons. Atheists have always existed, of course, but until recently, only a relative handful of philosophers and artists and bold contrarians dared wear the label publicly. With the Internet, people of every belief and subculture found each other, and they’re a sizable demographic, even if they’re still in the minority.

Are they more militant? Perhaps so, but then in these times nobody can afford to be on the fence or wishy washy about anything. I suspect many of them are reacting against the many extreme versions of religion which celebrate ignorace and violence. Many probably grew up in religions which demanded belief in absurdly impossible things or to abandon critical thinking altogether. Then too, we have a general polarization in politics and culture which does not even allow for the possibility of complex truths. People listen only to media channels and read blogs which confirm their own view of the world. Anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and those who persist in wrong are evil, so the theory goes.

 

[AnAtheist]

Well first off I would like to apologize for bringing up the nazi thing because it just dawned on me that you are German and I can only imagine how sensiteve that must be, so I am sorry I will not be so careless in the future.

Never mind. We are used to it. But, to be honest, Nazis are brought up so often in adiscussion without any reason except to automatically be on the morally right side, that it is a bit annoying. (We call that the “Nazi-club”. Club the archaic weapon, not a gentlemens’ establishment )

Also I am glad that you obviously have a strong moral sense, unfortunatly that is not the problem here it is a logical one. How logically can you have morals in an atheistic universe?

I don’t see a logical problem. Humans naturaliy live in societies, socities do not work without rules, thus rules have developed. First by evolution, then by culture. A society that condones murder, stealing and violence among its members naturally has a very low probability of survival. It is no supernatural wonder that according moral laws appear in almost all human societies.
Of course that is a logical or better to say naturalistic explanantion, **why **there is morality in the world rather than how it should look like in detail. Except the violence among society members that is.

 

[AnAtheist]

Are they more militant? Perhaps so, but then in these times nobody can afford to be on the fence or wishy washy about anything. I suspect many of them are reacting against the many extreme versions of religion which celebrate ignorace and violence. Many probably grew up in religions which demanded belief in absurdly impossible things or to abandon critical thinking altogether. Then too, we have a general polarization in politics and culture which does not even allow for the possibility of complex truths. People listen only to media channels and read blogs which confirm their own view of the world. Anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and those who persist in wrong are evil, so the theory goes.

Western atheism is a direct response or let’s say antithesis to Abrahamic monotheism, Christianity in particular. The problem is (as you said) that those monotheisms not only often claim absurds thing about the nature of the world but believe that those claims are some objective truth on how the world works, and thus everybody has to follow their beliefs.
A lot of other religions do not make that claim. They more or less give their members a perspective and/or guidelines for their lives (like ethics) but do not insist that those rules apply to everyone.
Religion should not try to explain how the universe functions, it can only lose against science. Religion should tell you how to live your life. And there are more ways than only one to do that. As Quintus Aurelius Symmachus wrote “We all look up to the same stars, the same sky is above us all, the same universe around us. What is the point on how each of us explores the truth? Through one way alone such a great mystery is not uncovered.” Wise words by an ancient pagan.
As for handling the truth in different types of religion, see Jan Assmann; The Mosaic Distinction or The Price of Monotheism;